This is what I am hearing.

Some people want a "weakened" environment where "regular" decks have an even playing field, rather than an "empowered" environment where "abnormally strong" decks have a better chance. Wouldn't the "empowered" environment balance itself out among the "abnormally strong" decks? If you get your dream bannings, aren't you afraid of one "regular" deck rising above like Curve Sentinels?

Let's do this. I don't think Enemy should or will be touched. Frankie might.

What would change if Frankie gets nuked? Wouldn't Kree still dominate Silver Age?

Stu's post above mine hits the nail on the head.

"Broken" implies that Enemy works in a way other than the designers intended, which is simply not true.

No. No, it can't. It sucks, period.

You can't ban a card because it is bad for casual play. This game is ultimately about playing on the Pro Circuit and no card will ever be banned because people who play casually think it's unfair.

I do not mind occasionally missing drops if I can underdrop, I do not like it to happen often, and I definitely do not want situations like that to be an auto loss, but stuff like that should happen at times for all decks. Depending the deck sometimes it should even happen more often than to others. If a decks relies on a combination of 4 cards that wins almost all the time, it should be not as consistent as say, a 2 team deck that actually team-ups based on a strategy at least not without some reasonable drawback to the consistency.

VU/Checkmate used Phantom Zone in conjunction with Bizarro, and that pretty much shuts down the whole tutor from turn 4 and can be pretty consistent. And if people keep relying on KO pile recursion in the meta after Worlds Finest arrive, you can bet people will maindeck more than one

As far as future hate is concerned, the argument is relevant as the only way to print hate for EOME, is as I said: put huge team-stamps and loyalties on characters which is not a good thing to do from a design point of view.
This as opposed to printing 1-2 cards that effect the KO pile or RS/Team Superman cards that are actually playable, which most likely will arrive in 2 sets.
General search hate like Time Trapper is not an option as it would effect not only EOME but all the other search cards and even then EOME would still be the best, and most likely just as much used.

Ummm, you're joking, right?

I mind missing drops always. Stuff like that should NEVER happen.

Hypotheticals aside, you're insinuating that decks that run combos or multiple card interactions are not based around strategy and that's an absurd claim. And they should be as consistent as the designer can possibly make them.

UDE doing away with Enemy will not force people to run two team decks and it will not make it easier for bad players to beat good players.

Tool box decks will still exist and the Enemy-haters will find some other card to blame. Until Enemy is DIRECTLY involved in some sort of infinite loop or degenerate combo it will not be banned, no matter how much you don't like it.

He clearly means that bannings and similar considerations focus on the organized play side of the game.

As usual, BackAgain is right. Obviously playing in a Pro Circuit is not the be all, end all for every player.

see, this doesnt make sense to me. your saying "make Enemy harder to use" but when a card does exactly that you complain, "well it affects the other search cards too". that assine, especially when you say this

which does almost the same thing. this weakens SttG, which you say is a fair card. it can reduce the effectiveness of team-stamped searcher if you make the cards too strictly stamped.

I consider a card 'broken' if it's power level is too high for a game. So for me stuff like 'vampiric tutor', 'dark ritual' is broken. In VS post errata Dr.Light is broken and to me so is EOME.


Brilliant argument. Honestly if you can not live with not getting perfect draws every time, maybe you should try another game without the random element, like chess. And you should definitely not play poker: "This game sucks I did not get a Royal Flush this time". ;)

Consistency should not be equally high for every deck (explained in a previous post) nor should it be perfect (otherwise we might as well forget shuffling in the game and that would result in about 3 decktypes that win on turn 3).

I never said that is the reason I want to ban it because it is bad in casual play. But Access made the argument that the card is good and needed for casual and I made a counter-argument for that.

The card is bad because it's power is too high for a minimal drawback. Honestly the fact that it is a 4x in 90% of the competitive decks, AND the fact that almost everyone making non mono team deck starts with 4x EOME if they can AND the fact it is a generic tutor that needs no support aside from cherry picking and silver bulleting during deck construction (which should be it's drawback, nice job UDE) might have been a hintsomething is wrong.

Altough I think UDE is realizing that slowly, but unlike with Dr.Light they can not just outright ban the card, because it is a rare and because it's value. I expect lot's of loyalty in the latest sets, and when they realize that is not stopping this card, a restriction in Golden.

I honestly would love to be wrong about this and would like to see the card become weaker through the environment and new cards instead of banning, but I simply do not see it happening.

it's true, I am with akugyaku,

You should only ban cards when they are being used in a fashion that it was not intended... Look at the current ban list.

I wrote it earlier in the thread... Every single one of those cards were banned because they were used in a way that it was not intended to be used. Except Dr. Light... he was banned because he was better than UDE had ever expected.

UDE worded EoME exactly how it was intended to be used, Discard a character card, search for a character card with a different printed affiliation. It adds consistancy, and that is what makes a deck fun, it's not fun to miss drops... and now that mobalize is out, that will help EVERY mono team ever made... if they planned on banning EoME they would have to consider Mobilize as well.

I could not disagree with you more on this.

Yes, this will help mono decks, but I still believe it will vastly hurt Two Team decks.

Yes, yes, less consistency (in general) would be a good thing for the game. I believe though, that Mono decks will completely unphased by the loss of EomE, rocketing them to the top of the casual game.

Why would I play a two team deck, where if I want to include Mobilize I have to make sure I team up and have a problem searching for my first drop of a team. Even if I'm ok hitting my non-optimal drop and staying with the same team rather than teaming up, than I STILL won't be able to utilize any of the 2nd team's team-stamp effects until I get a character of the right drop at the right time of the other team I can't search out (most likely on top of the team up), when I could just play mono-team, Get Mobilize (search for anyone in my deck anytime!), and if I have another on-team search, I can probably discard anyone for anyone else with that as well, giving me 8 PERFECT SEARCHERS.

Two Team decks will be vastly reduced in casual play, because Mono Team will be so much more consistent, and you know the synergy is already there.

And that's the problem, the synergy is already there. Mono-Decks are fun to play sometimes for the fan-boyish fufillment, but they are incredibly boring to put together. You're basically assembling a deck that UDE designed for you.

Most casual players I know really don't want this. They want to be able to brag about how they put together Hellfire Club and Kang, ect. ect. That's one of the greatest things about a card game - it's an outlet for creativity.

However, with the loss of EomE, alot of these players will be frustrated because they'll have a very, very hard time designing anything decent and original of their own when a simple mono-team deck will blow 99% of them out of the water just based on consistency.

Remember as well, I'm not even saying that we do absolutely nothing about the situation.

I AM saying that outright banning the card will have enormous negative effects as well - a thesis I could almost support just based on people's rampant "Let EomE Be!" posts alone.

There are alternatives.

My favorite: Just leave it alone in Golden, and focus more on Silver and Modern Age for professional tournaments.

That's my compromise, and honestly it seems to be one that I haven't heard many people, if anyone, argue directly against.

Comparing VS. to a game of chance, in which randomness and odds are implicit, is a misnomer. But I don't want to get into a nit-picking argument with you.

Yes it should. I don't mind being outplayed, but no one likes being lucksacked into a game loss. KSHoops said it earlier, if you like luck in your TCG then go play YuGiOh. This game is about Player Vs. Player, as I have stated before.


The only thing that this hints at is the greatness of Enemy. Nothing broken about. Well, not by the standard definition of broken anyway.

It's apparent that you are very firm in your opinion, and I can respect that. The fact remains that UDE does not ban based on power level (aside from maybe Overload, which never should have been printed in the first place) as they have said repeatedly. If Enemy started presenting design constraints to a level that Dr. Light did (which at this point, it's not even close too) then maybe they ban it, but that day is a long long time away.

My point was that the card need to be more in line with the power level of the other cards. A card that does weaken all search cards will not only make EOME weaker but every other search card too so EOME will still be more powerful than those. It is like person A has 10 apples and person B has 4 and you want to make person A have the same amount of apples as B. Just taking say 2 apples away from both will not exactly help with narrowing the gap between the two.


At least it is a way to weaken EOME in comparison with other team-stamped searchers, as the stronger loyalty would likely hurt the team stamped tutors less (because it is than not so easy to start cherry picking certain drops without teaming up).

Note that is not my intention or recommendation to do this because I find it a messy thing to do design wise, and as you noted it does affect more than I want to with SttG.

This (hopefully) does show you that they can not just print certain cards to change the environment in such way that EOME becomes in line with the other tutors.

Of course they might start to make team-stamped tutors on the level or even better than EOME, but that opens a whole new can of worms with the power creep and whatnot.

After reading both sides of the argument, I'm with leaving Enemy alone. I'm guessing Time Thief is supposed to be Doom's answer to Enemy and there is always Betrayal. All Eome decks are doing right now, in my opinion, is making sure we're on point when we build, test, play decks for PCs and PCQs.